Is a (credo) Baptist Church a false church, because of the t

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reena Wilms

Puritan Board Freshman
The true Church, (the Reformed theologians are saying) you can recognise on three marks: (1) The true preaching of the Word, (2) The right administration of the sacraments and (3) the faithful exercise of discipline. Now i have question concerning (2) "The right administration of the sacraments". I talked with a guy from a reformed church, and he said, that he believes in these marks, so his conclusion was that a (credo) Baptist Church is a "FALSE church", because they do not rightly administer the sacrament of baptism. I also believe in paedo baptism, but to say that a (credo) Baptist church is a "false church" is I think a wrong conclusion. You can believe that one Church (say the Presbyterian reformed) is more conformed to the Scripture as the other (lets say a Baptist Church). But if you say that a Baptist church is false church, than I think you are denying that this Church is not a gathering of believers who are bought with the precious blood of Christ, because it is a false church. Can someone help with this, because I believe in these three marks, but I have problems to speak that the (2) not a right use of sacraments (credo Baptist church) is than a false church!

Ralph
 
I agree with you Reena. It's inappropriate to label the Baptist's congregations as "false churches" that kind of approach to church purity is very narrow.
 
Somebody said that? Well if you live long enough you get to see it all, and I'm only 22. A true church is a church that promotes and supports the truth 1 Tim 3:15.

VanVos

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by VanVos]
 
Well the piont is that all most all the theologians like Calvin and L. Berkhof are writting that, and i understand, but iam wondering how the rest of the puritanboard members from the paedo baptism view this ? Are you all agree that these three marks are the only marks, and does that make a church who does have a different view on baptism a false church ? How must i deal with these statements like that ?

Ralph
 
Well Reena for me a church can be more or less biblical, there is a point when a church becomes not a church at all.
 
The answer, I believe, from a paedobaptist perspective is that the baptists do not have an illegitimate administration of the sacraments, but a defective one.

What I mean is this: Rome's view of the sacraments is just plain wrong - from ex opere operato to baptismal regeneration to the resacrifice of Christ. They think that the sacrament does something other than what the Bible says. It is also substantively dangerous.

Baptists on the other hand generally (yes, generally) have the same view of the sacraments that paedobaptists do, except that they apply them in truncated fashion.
 
Dear fredtgreco,

I think you know that english is not my first language, is it maybe possible to explain your last message in a easier explanation ?, so that i understand you better.

Thanks,

Ralph
 
[quote:de48ec83b3][i:de48ec83b3]Originally posted by Reena Wilms[/i:de48ec83b3]
Dear fredtgreco,

I think you know that english is not my first language, is it maybe possible to explain your last message in a easier explanation ?, so that i understand you better.

Thanks,

Ralph [/quote:de48ec83b3]

I'll try. Here is the sum (I think)

Rome is not a true church because she actually rejects the true marks of the Church. Her sacraments are false and wrong sacraments.

Baptists have partial Biblical sacraments. They are true as far as they go (baptizing professors for example), they just do not go far enough (to baptize infants).
 
Fred,
But are the people distributing the sacraments -proper-? I am basing this upon a few items. One being, our last conversation or two on the phone.
 
[quote:ce6c3a3f4f][i:ce6c3a3f4f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ce6c3a3f4f]
Fred,
But are the people distributing the sacraments -proper-? I am basing this upon a few items. One being, our last conversation or two on the phone. [/quote:ce6c3a3f4f]

I'm not sure I follow, Scott. If the sacraments are being dispensed by ministers of the gospel lawfully called (and keep in mind our previous thread on that issue), then the answer is yes.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Feel free to email me offline.
 
Correct me if I am wrong - baptists have a far different view of who is adminsitered baptism, and what baptism actually means. Do credos believe that baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament? What would be the difference between a defective view and a wrong view? One is just more wrong than the other, right? However, both are wrong.

What did Calvin say about these kinds of groups? What would he say now about these kinds of groups? Would he be tolerant of them or not? (That goes for Lefevere, Farel, Bucer, Beza, and the rest...)

Then, in terms of lawfully called, we already went over that little problem, and the Baptists on the board stayed far away from that one (and rightly so), except for one, and that one did not deal with the issue. So in terms of being lawfully called, that would settle the matter immediately that any independent church is not lawfully founded. much less has the right to administer the sacraments at all.

In either case, that would mean they cannot administer the sacraments, nor do they, when they do administer them, administer them in a proper capacity.

I would agree that Independents of all kinds are false churches, unlawfully founded, but that does not eman I do not think them to be lost. Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I love my independent Christian friends. But digging through historical works, and comparing them to the pastoral epistles have clinched it for me personally.

I would agree on a basic level with Ralph's friend's statement. There is more to it, but I cannot deny it based on my understadning of biblical church government and ordination, and ecclesiastical polity of all sorts.
 
Dear Math,

I understand your seal and passion for the reformed truth, but how can you say that baptist churches are "false churches" ?. Please explain me, because forexample iam (paedo baptism believer) still member of a baptist church. Iam not agree with there vieuw on baptism, but i stay there because in my town there is not one reformed church, which is orthodox in their theology, they are liberal, but this baptist church has good preaching, and it is a godfearing congracation, and i believe that this is assembely of godfearing believers who worship in the Lord God, through the fellowship of the Gospel. So if other reformed believers claim that this is a false church than iam very shocked to hear this!

Ralph
 
So then, in your opinion, I am not even duly ordained to the ministry am I?

That is the logical conclusion that you must draw. I cannot be ordained by a false church and be duly ordained, can I?

Then I am a divisive false teacher and should be warned, shunned, and put out of the church......


Phillip :no:
 
[quote:ee963aff90][i:ee963aff90]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:ee963aff90]
Phillip,

I love you brother, don't forget that.

You would have to define "false", but yes.[/quote:ee963aff90]

I would disagree. If baptist churches were false churches, their baptism would not be accepted by the Wesminster divines, which it was.

I would like to hear from someone who acknowledges Roman baptism as valid. (I don't remember if Matthew does) I would be shocked if Rome was considered more of a true church than a baptist church.

Remember the difference between [i:ee963aff90]esse[/i:ee963aff90] and [i:ee963aff90]bene esse[/i:ee963aff90]. I think you have conflated the two Matt.


It would help to read Cunningham on the subject - [i:ee963aff90]Church of Christ[/i:ee963aff90], 59ff. and to review WCF 25.2.


[Edited on 6-7-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
[quote:85237feeff]
You would have to define "false", but yes.
[/quote:85237feeff]

:no:

I find that one difficult to accept....and I'm paedo.

I thinkly only some Reformed churches actually hold to Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper...I think we'd be left with only Dutch Reformed churches and certain Presbyterian churches as "true" churches if that's the conclusion. BTW- my church holds to a Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper.

Don't worry Pastorway, I'm in a false church too :lol:

It really seems that this is getting to the point of splicing hairs...maybe even double splicing. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church as a CHURCH. They didn't exercise church discipline, they were becoming drunk at the Lord's Table, they abandoned the gospel for the teaching of the Super Apostles....c'mon!

Is it just me, or have the last few months been months of people becoming really, really narrow? I hate saying that because I generally don't care for people being too broad...but this seems extreme. I don't know of Scripture to even supporting your ideas on how you define a true church. Seems Paul was most interested in the Gospel, the Lord's Table, and discipline. The Reformed Baptist churches I've encountered approached all three soberly and biblically. They must be a true church. If they're not, would you consider my marriage valid? I was married by my Reformed Baptist pastor. Obviously he's not a true minister of God...in fact, I probably ought to forget the counselling he gave myself and my wife and throw out the counselling book he used (which was written by a Presbyterian).

I love being Paedo...I love being Presbyterian. I love Calvin's understanding of the sacraments...but that isn't the standard.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Craig]
 
That's why I said, you must define "false." Do you mean apostate? Do you mean schismatic? Do you mean in error? What does false mean?

Fred, you may want to check the Assemblies thoughts on what they meant. It is a bit different in terms of what lines you are thinking. They wrote HEAVILY on Independents as being schismatic, and without any warrant whatsoever to have "ordained ministers". That is why Phillip asked if I thought he was lawfully ordained. It comes down to who ordained him, and who ordained him, and who ordained him all the way back to first "independent". Who ordained the first one?

The Assembly literally wrote tomes on this, and it was labeled the "Great Debate" of the 17th century, of which, sorry to say, both by exegesis and argumentation, the Independents lost miserably.

The Independents used certain argumentation like this:

[quote:92d79ee90a]
Paul wrote to the Corinthian church as a CHURCH.
[/quote:92d79ee90a]

The Assembly tore them up on this. (I'll post the answer to it later in a papaer I am working on on this subject for school).


[quote:92d79ee90a]
Is it just me, or have the last few months been months of people becoming really, really narrow?
[/quote:92d79ee90a]

Its probably just me. I have not seen many others becoming more narrow.

I really was not trying to answer Ralph's post by simply appealing tot he sacraments. It goes back further than that to the lawful polity of a given church.

Chapter 25, by the WCF's standards, is not allowing Independecy. (That I will address on a historical look at the Assembly on this issue later.

What I am finidng is that information like this (all the stuff I have been reading on this era in history) is SORELY lost by the seminaries of today. I heard no hint, nothing at all, about any of this. I think it is because people are afraid to actually stand up today for a narrow view of God and His church. If you read the National Covenant, or the Confession of Public Sins (hint, hint, its part of the Westminster Standards) you find them listing specifically the evils against the church of God. Think about this - they are repenting for not upholding the truth, and so list those thigns they vowed anew to reject and eradicate from the church :

"Because religion is of all things the most excellent and precious, the advancing and promoting the power thereof against all ungodliness and profanity, the securing and preserving the purity thereof against all error, heresy, and schism, and namely, Independency, Anabaptism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, and socinianism, Familism, Libertinism, Scepticism and Erastinianism, ..."

The Assembly did NOT believe that independent churches are "sanctioned" under chapter WCF 25. This whole document was ratified by the Assembly, and by Scotland at two different juntures - 1645 and 1648, one by the Solemn League and Covenant and one by teh actual profession of the sins at the time.

Everyone who is part of the "professing visible church" is not necessarily part of a particular church. Would you agree Fred? Just because we have a bunch of professing beleivers that get together does not mean that they suddenly become a church warranted by the "laying on of hands of the elders."

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by webmaster]
 
I find this thread almost unbearably sad. Surely it should be possible for Christians to debate vigorously with one another without calling one another a false church. As one who began his Christian life in the Brethren, this sounds to me much too much like the Exclusives!

Obviously, it would be possible for Baptists to throw the charge right back at the Presbyterians. From our point of view Paedo-baptists do not administer the ordinances correctly. But what is the value of this sort of abuse? How does it advance the cause of the Church?

Matt wrote that, 'The Assembly did NOT believe (sic) that Independent churches are "sanctioned" under chapter WCF 25'. Well of course they didn't! The Presbyterian majority on the WCF (especially the Scots!) did not embrace religious liberty. The wanted one State Church under Presbyterianism and NO dissenters.

If it hadn't been for Cromwell, the Presbyterians would have been persecutors just as much as the Episcopalians had been. That is why John Milton wrote, 'New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large!'

I've only come back to this forum for a short visit, but let each of us beware lest Gal 4:29 be found to be speaking of us.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by grace2U]
 
Matt,

Could you please expound a little on what you mean by an "independent" church? Do you mean "not in a denomination"? Or something other than that? Thanks.
 
[quote:0a4a525a2f]
The Assembly literally wrote tomes on this, and it was labeled the "Great Debate" of the 17th century, of which, sorry to say, both by exegesis and argumentation, the Independents lost miserably.
[/quote:0a4a525a2f]

Matthew: I am very interested in researching this. Can you refer me to some sources to read?

Thanks
 
All...

As one who will be labeled narrow, I find this thread sad, too. The reason it is sad is because a principle is being ignored here that is perfectly sound and biblical.

We are to be unified, we are to be one.

By the very definition of one, in order for it to become 2 or 28,000 which is the approximate number of "Christian" denominations, someone has to be schismatic - and I mean schismatic in the full malevolence of that word.

But, depending on our side, we don't like that word, because it describes us. The problem is we actually think we have the right to be schismatic.

Oh, I can hear you all sitting at your computers mumbling something about the fact that the Reformation happened shows that schism is legitimate. Well, here comes the all important distinction: Is it schism to leave an apostate church? Nope. That's merely shaking the dust off.

The independents have to come to grips with this. Whether it is easily admitted or not, biblical words have meaning. And, if we are honest with these terms, we'll come to grips with what is truly going on.

We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.

What are the barriers to unity? US. It's not a confession, as NCT advocates Wells and Zaspel say. It's not taking a hard line on biblical truth, we're supposed to do that.

What do we do? Lie down and act like we don't care? Aren't we called to be a pillar and ground of truth? Do pillars step out of the way when someone disagrees with them? Do they roll over and allow any subjective truth to override them?

Just because people stand firm does not make them evil. Paul told us to. Did he mean that we are only to stand firm as long as we agree with those who would muddy the waters of theology? I don't think he did and I don't think he suggested that we should.

Ecumenicity is a fine thing for some, but its just plain wrong. We only have union between us when we agree to what the Bible teaches. We can't really have fraternal relations when about the only thing we can agree on are the 5 points against the Remonstrants. Are we still brothers? Yes, but estranged. Now are we estranged because of our fault or theirs? Something has to give. One group has to submit to the other. We can't make concessions or compromises with the truth of the Reformation unless all of us agree that it errs on a point.

The Baptists have been trying to show that it erred on the point of Baptism. What? Should we fold up our tents and all become Baptists when it is clearly a minority opinion? When it can't be shown from Scripture that our infants are excluded? When Baptists do dry dedications? (Pastor Way, I am not talking about you because I understand you do not do these.)

For those to come out of the Reformed churches, the best Reformed churches, is schism. These churches weren't apostate, there was merely a difference of opinion.

Sure Presbyterians have split many times, but over what? Eroding adherance to the Standards. There are always going to be those who want a looser subscription or they don't want to take a stand for the tenets of our faith. They want to take in more numbers of those who do not agree with the starting point. Every disaster in the Presbyterian church can be traced to an attack on the standards.

The defence is always made for these because the church mistreated them or martyred them or whatever. That is not the standard's fault. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of men who were sinners. Yet, should we fault them for upholding the truth? Should we fault them for their adherance to the Bible and what it teaches?

We look at our own government and we see them abuse this principle time after time. They are completely dualistic because the claim the right of religious freedom but only if it is a religion besides Christianity.

The same thing happens within the church. Tolerance should be allowed for every sect except for Presbyterianism. Their strong stance is not allowed because it infringes on the rights of others. Do we get this from the Bible? No. We get it straight from our own democracy.

What am I saying? Are Baptist churches schismatic? Yes, because they have not joined with churches that are not apostate. Do they rightly administer the sacrament of baptism? Even though they do not call it a sacrament, they still perform water baptism in keeping with the Scriptures on those who profess faith in Christ, and it is obvious to me, that God blesses this sign they perform with the thing signified. They may have a skewed view with their eyes so much on the sign, but that does not make their baptism invalid.

Are their pastors duly ordained? This is a tough one. Would we say that for all the other 28,000 "Christian" Denominations? Again, if we can't say it for all of these, then what is the criteria? Calvinism? True Calvinism touches the Sacraments the way Presbyterians practice. But, I would say in the final analysis, that God ordains and calls. If a man is called of God from a schismatic church, who are we to stand against him? If we do not ordain him, shame on us, because he is God's man. Are God's men perfect? Do they understand every point of doctrine when they are ordained? Because I believe this, I cannot say that only the Presbyterian church can ordain a true minister of the gospel. I think to say such a thing places a sacerdotal slant on it.

Are schismatic churches true churches? This gets even more convoluted, but we have to apply the principle that every church is a mixture of truth and error. How much error, then, makes them a false church? I can't say that of Pastor Way's church because I know what he believes and what he teaches. His church is a mixture of truth and error, but I know in my heart of hearts, truth wins the day in his church.

Again, do we call? Do we ordain? Do we establish a local body of believers? No. God does. We should, therefore, not stand against these churches and call them false, who believe on the Lord Jesus even though they may err on points. We should exhort and rebuke, though, and work on these guys to see these points where they err.

It really boils down to submission, though. I would feel much better about the independents if they had more submission to the larger body of Christ. I think Christ calls them to this and wants them to repent of their schism. But we all have this to deal with.

In Christ,

KC
 
Dear KC Easter,

Thank you so much for your clear explication on this difficult subject. I found it very helpfull!

For everybody on the Board:

Concerning the definition of a false church I have a question:
Is a false church a synagogue of satan, yes or no? And those who say that it is, do you then believe that baptist churches (which have true believers) are synagogues of satan?

Ralph
 
KC,

I agree with everything you said, as far as I understand it. That is why I'm Presbyterian and paedo, etc.

I am quite "narrow". The problem for me lies in defining Reformed Baptists as having a "false church". You're right that there must be a way of defining what is false, but I believe they got the essentials and then some correct. I don't believe in the ecumenical movement. I believe we need to define who are enemies and who is not our enemy. While I find their doctrine on baptism faulty, I don't think that error should lead us to conclude they're a false church. I find baptismal regeneration to be far more dangerous and undermines the gospel.
 
Mr McMahon,

The PCA BOC Section 2-2 says,

[quote:013d7ed079]
2-2. This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.
[/quote:013d7ed079]

Do you agree?
 
Again, to all, that is why I said you have to define "false."

I don't like the word. Maybe "in error" would be better.

In defining those, then, who are lawfully or not lawfully ordained is really, as said, the crux of the matter.


[quote:4b6ff1569f]
The problem is we actually think we have the right to be schismatic.
[/quote:4b6ff1569f]

Correct.
 
Dan.

What does "true branches" mean?

Do they mean those lawfully called?

Do they mean those lawfully ordained?

Do they mena a true church both lawfully called together and having the ability of a non-presbyterian form of givernment?

Seems a bit vague depending upon what questions you ask of the text written.

Its sounds to me, though, that they are advocating tolerance, and independency by the statement.

I do think that a group of Christians who come topgether and profess Christ are part of the visible church (just as Fred pointed out in WCF 25). But I do not believe that they can suddenly, inherently in an dof themselves, become schismatic and say that they are now a "particular church."

Dan, quote for us out of the BCO the section on what it takes to constitute a particular church and then we can compare that with you quoted above.
 
Scot,


[quote:5505b38e3d]
Can you refer me to some sources to read?
[/quote:5505b38e3d]

Here is the problem with that: no one is publishing much nowadays on the confession in this regard because the documents themselves cause hearty divisions (like this thread) between brothers. Its just not ecclesiastically politically correct to publish such things. So, instead, you have to read the original documents. That can be problematic. I must say, I am exceedingly thankful that I have the CD set by Still Waters Revival Books. Though I disagree with SWRB as a church entity in their view on the Solemn League, they still have put together an excellent bibliography of original resources. If you have or can obtain the disks before their time runs out, then much info is there.

You can also read Hetherington's book on the Assembly which gives a bit of background on this debate. Also, if you own Warfield's set he has a volume on the assembly as well.

I will try to put together a bibliography for you later on (I am going to need it anyway for my own research and it would be handy to have.)

This is a really heated topic, and it was a heated topic in their day as well. Men I admire (like Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Goodwin, and Phillip Nye) were on the losing side of the debate, however, their writings and work in church history have affected me for the better than most (Burrough's works and sermons exegetically considered fromt he bible for example have profoundly affected my views of worship, sin, contentment, and godly fear. Goodwin's understanding of justification is well documented in his works and very helpful.) But the topic at hand is more akin to the idea surrounding schism and church polity rather than some of the foundational doctrines that we all believe. For example, Phillip's church (Pastorway) is probably more sound in theology than many Presbyterian ministers I have met in the past. Disagreeing then on church polity should not cause an exclusivistic rift between us, but it should press us to consider the Scriptures more carefully.

I am very glad we are having this conversation on the board. Its a bit spicy, a bit heated, and bit tough to swallow in many ways, but it stretches us to consider thing even if some of us are a bit more extreme in their views than others would like.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by webmaster]
 
[quote:3205b3d0d7]
Is a false church a synagogue of satan, yes or no? And those who say that it is, do you then believe that baptist churches (which have true believers) are synagogues of satan?
[/quote:3205b3d0d7]


Ralph, with what you understand thus far, why don't you come up with a definition of "false church." I think that would be helpful all around. How would you, in the context of this thread, define the word "false?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Must A Confessing Baptist See The Church in the OC then?
Replies
23
Views
2K
Dachaser
D
W
  • Locked
The Invisible Church is ...
Replies
9
Views
2K
Me Died Blue
Me Died Blue
B
  • Locked
The Nation of Israel was the Church
Replies
18
Views
3K
WrittenFromUtopia
W
no1special18
  • Locked
Does John Teach a distinction between the church and Israel?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Scott
Scott
Doulos McKenzie
  • Locked
Israel and the Church
Replies
14
Views
3K
johnny
johnny
Back
Top